Comments

  • John McEnroe: Serena Williams would rank 'like 700 in the world' in men's circuit play
    Is there any truth to John McEnroe's statements? Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true? What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements?geospiza

    I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I can speculate. Or at least, I can supply one interpretation of what he said, and it seems plausible that he could have meant it in this way, in which case what he's saying is not as pointless as others here think.

    Given differences in average strength and whatever else may explain the average performance differences between men and women in tennis, McEnroe may have been reacting to the constant wish to compare Williams to male players. He might have been saying that it's silly and demeaning to constantly wonder how good she is compared to men. He demonstrates this with a dichotomy: she would only be 700th in the world if she were competing with men, and yet, she indisputably is one of the greatest athletes ever.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    I have a lot of respect for womenAgustino

    Indeed, women are precious creatures whose virtue must be protected from the temptations of licentiousness. ;)
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    And so now a diversion into the wisdom of affirmative action? Nothing I've said hinted at whether affirmative action programs were morally, Constitutionally, or pragmatically sound. What I pointed to was the injustice of discrimination, not to whether our legislatures have properly addressed the evil.

    Regardless, it is likely we share the same conclusions on this subject, but I'd suspect for differing reasons because I tend to look at law very pragmatically, and I see such programs as offering little good and usually to those least needy, but all of this is a major degression and topic shift.
    Hanover

    Agustino always has some bugbear in mind, a generalized target, whether it's cultural marxism or feminism or progressives or whatever, and that leads him to conflate independent claims and positions. If he sees a claim that strikes him as a bit too lefty, he then attributes to you all kinds of other claims, claims that go together in his caricature.

    I do something like this myself, because often what I'm arguing against is ideology. But in this case, the two positions Agustino is lumping together really are best treated as independent: like you, I think that the relegation of women to subservient roles is historical and social, but I am no great fan of affirmative action.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Hanover's post suggested that the reason for social inequality was arbitrary, which is wrong. It wasn't. And that's also what the women's studies feminists seem to believe, which is just bullshit.Agustino

    No, his post did not suggest that. The very fact that it is the historical subjugation of women he was talking about implies it is not arbitrary. And being a woman is a biological fact (contra some modern theorists who might say otherwise), so one could say that the biological fact of being a woman determines whether one is going to be subjugated as a woman, but this obviously wouldn't be saying much.

    Not only that, but his whole point was that, far from being arbitrary, it is the specific facts of a social environment that determine how a person's biology will affect their life.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    All right, I guess we can kind of agree on all that. Even so, it's obvious that you wanted to emphasize the biology, as if doing so somehow went against Hanover's point. It doesn't, which is why I made my contribution, to point out something you appeared to be missing.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    The answer is that it depends how you slice it. One can go along with you and say, in a manner of speaking, that the fact of pregnancy determines the role of women. But this leaves too much out. The full statement ought to be: the fact of pregnancy determines the role of women in a social environment in which women are bound to the household, subservient to men, unable to pick and choose between social roles, where childcare is unavailable, and so on. You wanted to say that biology is primary here, but if what I've said so far is true, it is the social environment that is crucial.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    I don't see what your problem is here, and I don't know what your emphasis on "should" is about, as I didn't accuse you of saying that biology should or must or necessarily determine social facts. You said...

    The truth is there are biological reasons for this.Agustino

    And my only point, building on Hanover's original post, was that it is the social environment that determines how the biological facts of pregnancy etc., happen to affect women.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Well, that's precisely what you did (setting aside your sneaky "necessarily"). You explained social facts with an appeal to biological facts. You strongly implied that you think the fact that "women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles" is down to biology.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    I don't see the relevance. Just more opinionating.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    IF women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles (which by the way I don't think is the case everywhere in history), then why did this happen? Is it an arbitrary thing that it was women who were relegated to submissive roles and not men? :s It seems to me that you have internalised a very leftist way of looking at this situation.

    The truth is there are biological reasons for this.
    Agustino

    The point is that it's the social environment that determines whether the biological facts--of pregancy and giving birth--lead to such relegation. Nowhere in your post do you show that it's the other way around.
  • The Shoutbox
    You're the one in the silver dress, right?
  • The Shoutbox
    The ewes have those horns too.
  • The Shoutbox
    Thanks 0 thru 9, much appreciated.
  • What makes something beautiful?
    Cheers. I love medium format film. :)
  • The Shoutbox
    Scottish
    Black
    Face
    Mongrel

    My favourite sheep. I found one of their skulls in a field once and took this photo:

    sheep-skull.jpg
  • What about Adam Smith?
    The history of anarchism is mainly Leftist. To say that Chomsky is anarchist tout court is to say he is on the Left.
  • The Shoutbox
    My God, that's fierce. I'm struggling with the heat here and it's only 30 celcius (86 in old money).

    EDIT: Wait, seriously, 48 celcius? Yikes.
  • Someone prove me wrong
    Planning is guessing, as David Heinemeier Hansson used to say.

    I think it depends on whether or not you've done the task before, and how complex it is. I agree with the spirit of the claim but would be compelled to vote No, because I don't think it's impossible, but just most often impossible or close to impossible.
  • The Pornography Thread
    Not just that. I'm talking about the bigger picture, and whether it would or would not make sense if certain elements were removed. Morality requires more than moral agents, it requires the right kind of environment and the right kind of activity.Sapientia

    I agree. It looks like you might be describing intersubjectivity, which I would say counts as objectivity in this case--unless one means objectivity in the sense of being entirely independent of minds (which I think you don't mean).
  • First and second order ethics
    So, if there is no first/second order distinction, would you say that under consequentialism, killing an innocent person just becomes ethical if it is done for a good ethical reason, i.e., because it will somehow (we can imagine scenarios) bring about more happiness or less suffering in general? To me, a first and second order scheme describes the situation better, because it acknowledges the immorality of killing an innocent person, rather than just cancelling it out with a consequentialist calculus.